It doesn't need to be serious and business-like, but it does need to contribute to the discussion. The likes of leet speak, fanboi terms, and first post claims do none of that, and in fact are harmful (no matter how well-meaning) because they contribute to the noise rather than the signal.
There are plenty of posts on HN that directly "contribute to the discussion," but still get voted down. I think it's more accurate to say a post is down or upvoted on the basis of whether or not the post contributes to the discussion the voters want to read.
Yes, at a minimum it needs to contribute to the discussion. If it doesn't do that, it should get voted down. There are other factors at play that will make people vote something down also; there was a topic/entry here with some interesting suggestions about multi-dimensional ratings (that I can't seem to find the page for it now).
It doesn't need to be serious and business-like, but it does need to contribute to the discussion.
Well, without being serious it's really difficult to pull off contributing to a discussion, especially in a way that would be deemed acceptable by you, for example.
My point was that the post up there did not contain leet speak, fanboi terms or first post claims, and did not really deserve eight downvotes worth of punishment only for not contributing.
You could say its contribution was to cheer Cappuccino on.
I apologize for being unable to completely enumerate all the possibilities of inane comments. That being said "Yeaaaah! Cappuccino Rocks Da House!!! :-)" is closer to "leet speak, fanboi terms, and first post claims" in general than it is to contributing to the discussion.
Why is being told that your post is not contributing considered "punishment"? There's only a single axis for people to express their vote on, and thus that's the only effective way to communicate that someone thinks something isn't contributing. Downvoting is not a personal attack (shouldn't be used as such and shouldn't be interpreted as such), but the belief is that it sufficiently sends a message that such content isn't wanted, for whatever reason (the fact that no reason is supplied is a deficiency in the system itself, having only one axis, not in the use of down votes).
I apologize for being unable to completely enumerate all the possibilities of inane comments.
Are we approaching Reddity levels of snarkiness already?
You're right in that there's no need to enumerate all possible offenses, but still, I think the comment was not harmful enough to warrant such a strong negative response.
Inane comments aside, are you sure we're not taking things too seriously?
Is it really absolutely certain that by not sending a strong message, "condemning" any comments that are not dressed up in fancy words and complicated sentences, Hacker News would just totally fall apart?
I can say not much at all in a complicated sentence, and still get no downvotes for not contributing to a conversation.
Is there really no middle ground worth exploring, between the circle-jerk of witticisms with a few insightful and informative comments sprinkled in between that is Reddit, and the rigid, enforced seriousness of HN?
If you post something along the lines of "first!" or general fanboism, you're more than likely going to get a number of downvotes. That's how it's always been here, and that's the whole point of the entire fucking karma system. It's intended to instigate, hopefully, meaningful discussions, or at least something that reflects a thoughtful presence.
